Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[Guest]

Well there's virtually no mention of lost tribes in the Book of Mormon...so how would that taint them into describing Spalding's story as they did?

marge, that is the crux of the matter. Whatever story about the lost tribes that was supposedly in Solomon's does not appear in any reasonable form in the Book of Mormon.
Witness after witness averred that the Book of Mormon read almost identical to the Book of Mormon except for the religious parts. (That is not an exact quote, but is the "gist" of what they stated.) If Solomon's story indeed was about the lost tribes coming to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians that should be what the Book of Mormon is about. There is a clear error there that is apparent to most readers.

There is a clear error there apparent to most people who understand the lost tribes story origins and legends. Esdras is a book in the apocrypha that tells of the lost tribes being led away from the place of their exile, as Dan mentioned. The apocrypha were originally part of the King james version of the Bible, but gradually fell out of favor and ultimately were removed altogether. It was available in many if not most King James editions during the time period we are talking about. It is still part of the Bible used by the Catholics and accounted by them as scripture.


Glenn

[_MCB]

Reply to Finrock:

Well, I guess you are going to have to read the book.

"Most Mormons," having no access to parallels in literature, because of their beliefs, read the Book of Mormon, identifying with the Nephites, and do not see the Nephite's fate as their fate, if they choose to be elitist and racist. They do not appreciate the deeper meaning. Since they "follow the leaders," who are are deeply steeped in LDS culture, their leaders reinforce this view. Therefore, I use the term "most Mormons." I agree, most Mormons are not racist and elitist. However, the core of believers-- many and the most powerful, are. The others just "follow the leaders."

As for running a study on those tendencies among LDS, I included data already available, and a very heart-felt case-study.

Reply to Dan:
Idea which I have not fully explored. Now that I have found Mallet's Northern Antiquities, I can develop that further. The vague referents to "lost tribes," and similar Judaic traditions, is meant to be vague, and not quite an exact match to Biblical (including Deuterocanonical) information. This is because Spalding thought that the Hebrew Indians theory was a crock. It was a satire on it, with the underlying plot being the Norse presence in North America. However, the witnesses were not familiar with the Norse stories, so therefore could not encode it as such. They encoded it with the theory that was most current at the time. And were influenced to do so through having recently (in most cases) skimmed through the Book of Mormon, which served as a retrieval cue.

[_GlennThigpen]

Reply to Dan:
Idea which I have not fully explored. Now that I have found Mallet's Northern Antiquities, I can develop that further. The vague referents to "lost tribes," and similar Judaic traditions, is meant to be vague, and not quite an exact match to Biblical (including Deuterocanonical) information. This is because Spalding thought that the Hebrew Indians theory was a crock. It was a satire on it, with the underlying plot being the Norse presence in North America. However, the witnesses were not familiar with the Norse stories, so therefore could not encode it as such. They encoded it with the theory that was most current at the time. And were influenced to do so through having recently (in most cases) skimmed through the Book of Mormon, which served as a retrieval cue.

The witnesses were not making vague refferences to the lost tribes. We have only their statements as to the their conversations with Solomon and what they actually consisted of. Whatever Solomon's true feelings on the subject may have been, he seemed careful not to broadcast them to others.
The evidence that Solomon actually wrote a second story is the issue here, and the lost tribes theme is just one bit more evidence against it.

Glenn

[_MCB]

vague references to the lost tribes

I need to be more specific when communicating with you. The Spalding text, (and also the Book of Mormon) was not specifically and accurately referring to the lost tribes, because that is not what the core story is about. It only brought in the subject because it was the theory then current, and had some similarities with the story of the lost Hebrew tribes. The witnesses could encode that, because it was what they were familiar with. Therefore, the recurring statements about lost tribes.

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB,

There is a big difference between outsiders mocking what they see as silly stories, and outsiders who see wise satire in stories. Insiders, in this instance, taking everything seriously, refuse to learn from those stories. Sometimes it takes a sense of humor to drive a point home, especially in order to get past the individual's defenses.

Why else has Aesop's fables been so deeply ingrained into our (and European) culture?

When I look at the "Nephites," who thought themselves superior to the "Lamanites," meeting their inevitable end, and the survivors assimilating with the "Lamanites," who are not that bad, after all, I see wisdom in the Book of Mormon. Most Mormons miss that, because they believe themselves superior to non-Mormons, particularly those of color, or whose ancestry is otherwise not "suitable." All this ends up being a huge, but sad, practical joke. I do not mock the Book of Mormon here.

The Calvinistic racism in the Book of Mormon is not a joke. The Book of Mormon is a serious warning—a Jeremiad—to Jacksonian America that if they didn’t repent and reform, God would use the Indian to destroy them just as he had done to the Nephites and Jaredites. In other words, Joseph Smith was using the Mound Builder myth as a warning to his fellow Americans. The ancestors of the Indians had destroyed a white, agricultural, Christian nation much like America and buried them in the mounds. It was a very clever literary device—something that was beyond Spalding’s secularist concerns. The Book of Mormon is written from a providential point of view. The book is not just a compilation of stories randomly strung together like Spalding’s style of writing. Rather, the Book of Mormon’s stories are interspersed with Mormon’s didactic commentary supporting a providential view of history. The Book of Mormon was not intended to be read as a fable, or fiction, but as real history, and to read it as you suggest is itself laughable.

Reply to Dan:
Idea which I have not fully explored. Now that I have found Mallet's Northern Antiquities, I can develop that further. The vague referents to "lost tribes," and similar Judaic traditions, is meant to be vague, and not quite an exact match to Biblical (including Deuterocanonical) information. This is because Spalding thought that the Hebrew Indians theory was a crock. It was a satire on it, with the underlying plot being the Norse presence in North America. However, the witnesses were not familiar with the Norse stories, so therefore could not encode it as such. They encoded it with the theory that was most current at the time. And were influenced to do so through having recently (in most cases) skimmed through the Book of Mormon, which served as a retrieval cue.

You don’t know what Spalding thought about the ten tribe theory. Neither do you know what the witnesses encoded or did not encode. This kind of thinking is seriously flawed due to the inability to disprove or prove it. What it turns out to be is that these labels are applied as you need them, not as the evidence directs. You can’t say whether the Book of Mormon acted as a retrieval cue or a memory corruptor. Your belief that it was a cue is based on circular reasoning. Once they read the Book of Mormon, it’s impossible to determine which phenomenon happened. What was needed was for them to given information about Spalding’s MS that was not prompted by anything. That didn’t happen, unfortunately.

I need to be more specific when communicating with you. The Spalding text, (and also the Book of Mormon) was not specifically and accurately referring to the lost tribes, because that is not what the core story is about. It only brought in the subject because it was the theory then current, and had some similarities with the story of the lost Hebrew tribes. The witnesses could encode that, because it was what they were familiar with. Therefore, the recurring statements about lost tribes.

You must stick with what the witnesses said they remembered, that is, that the Indians were descended from the lost tribes. That’s not what the Book of Mormon says. The Indians are descendants of the Jews. That doesn’t mean the tribe of Judah, but rather the Kingdom of Judah, in the south, as opposed to the northern Kingdom of Israel. Anyone living in the south wasn’t considered descended from the “lost tribes”. The lost tribes were those carried away from the north a hundred years before Lehi. You don’t know what Spalding’s core story was, because you don’t have the alleged MS. The witnesses said it explained the Indians were descended from the lost tribes—the story behind that statement is unknown to you. Of course, you believe it was the Book of Mormon, but that assumption is another circular argument. Besides, as I said, the Book of Mormon isn’t about the Indians being descended from the ten tribes. You can either invent more ad hoc theories to save your main thesis, or you can do the simple thing—reject the Spalding witnesses as unreliable.

[_MCB]

The Book of Mormon is a serious warning—a Jeremiad—to Jacksonian America that if they didn’t repent and reform, God would use the Indian to destroy them just as he had done to the Nephites and Jaredites.

I agree totally. It is a practical consequence of sin-- or, from your POV, unethical behavior. However, that is not how many LDS interpret it. They, with their Calvinistic leanings, perpetuate the myth of white "Christian" superiority, reinforced by Brigham Young's teachings.

Your accusation of circular reasoning re the witnesses is legitimate. That is one reason why I have had difficulty approaching a detailed analysis of the witnesses to Spalding's story.

Again, I stand by the belief that Joseph Smith was not academically qualified to write such a story. And I have plenty of information to substantiate that. It is not a mere assertion.

I do not

reject the Spalding witnesses as unreliable.

However, I take them with a spoonful of salt, because of the issues of unreliability.

What was needed was for them to given information about Spalding’s MS that was not prompted by anything. That didn’t happen, unfortunately.

That wouldn't have happened, because their only reason for remembering it would have been seeing or hearing a similar story.



I enjoy debating with you. You do keep me on my toes.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Dan: Your attempt to connect Lehi to the lost tribes theory is illogical because the theory is based on Esdras, and Esdras says the tribes left a hundred years before Lehi was born.


Marg: Lost tribes dispersed around 720 B.C....Lehi & family migrated around 600 B.C. ..don't see a problem yet.

Maybe you should slow down and only answer when you have time. Whether you see it or not, your theory is contradicted by the evidence. The witnesses said they remembered Spalding’s MS explained the origin of the Indians, that they were descended from the lost tribes, and that the Book of Mormon was the same as Spalding’s MS. The problem is that Lehi wasn’t descended from the lost tribes, because they were gone into a far-away country “where never mankind dwelt” a hundred years before he was born.

Whatever is in the Book of Mormon is irrelevant, witnesses were recalling Spalding's book. And if you are right, then there was no reason for the witnesses to mention "lost tribes" based on exposure to the Book of Mormon.

You contradict yourself here. How can the content of the Book of Mormon be irrelevant when your witnesses are testifying it was the same as Spalding’s MS? Either the witnesses are accurately recalling Spalding’s MS, and therefore it was not like the Book of Mormon, or they are mistaken about Spalding’s MS, and therefore can’t be relied on anyway. More likely, the witnesses’ memories were tainted by what they thought the Book of Mormon was about based on popular misconceptions about its contents.

Spalding apparently was not religious..so the Bible was not authoritative to him.

Why couldn't he have a story..which begins with the dispersal of the 10 tribes in 720 B.C. or even mention his characters in 600 B.C. were descendants of lost tribes from the 720 B.C. group. I don't see the problem with this. Even now, the speculation is where did the lost tribes go and who are their descendants. Is the theory limited to lost tribes migrating to only one spot in the world..and they couldn't possibly have dispersed to different areas? If so why?

The ten tribe theory is based on the passage in Esdras, which says they traveled over land and water for a year and a half into a far-away region, and eventually into a land called Arsareth. What actually happened and what legend says happened can be separate things. Even when the Book of Mormon rejects the ten tribe theory of Indian origins, it maintains the legend by having them in an unexplored region of the earth. The question for you is: why would Spalding reference the ten tribe theory for Indian origins, but then depart from the passage that inspired the theory in the first place?

One of the witnesses Mckee said Spalding had the 10 tribes migrate to China... fight amongst themselves and the surviving group join forces and went north to Bering str and over to America. Maybe spalding worked backwards adding more stories going back to 720 B.C. as he was with McKee later than the other witnessses. But none of the witnesses were concerned that Spalding's story was about a small group migrating to America and associated with the lost tribes. And yet , if everyone back then was so fanatically rigid in their beliefs and couldn't deviate from a one only lost tribes theory which involved a mass migration in 720 B.C. to one area in the world ..how is it they have no problem with a different storyline? The focus of the story was to write a story about the first people's in America which also explained Am. Indians. So why couldn't a few descendents from the 720 B.C. lost tribes mythical story ..end up being part of Spalding's tale in which they migrate to America.

McKee also made his statement much later than the other witnesses. A more likely explanation is that the witnesses were confusing both the Book of Mormon and Spalding’s MS with the ten tribe theory. In other words, they believed the Book of Mormon was about the lost tribes and that corrupted their memories about Spalding’s MS, which wasn’t about the ten tribes either.

Dan: Shifting to a southern migration, which had no biblical support and ran counter to expectations, would have served no purpose. In doing so, he would have lost the authority upon which the theory was based.


Marg: I thought the lost tribes myth wasn't even in the Bible. I have no idea what you are talking about "he would have lost the authority" MCB can you help make some sense out of this for me?

The Apocrypha was included in Bibles at Joseph Smith’s time, but was being questioned and eventually removed. What I’m saying here is what I said above when I asked the question: why would Spalding reference the ten tribe theory for Indian origins, but then depart from the passage that inspired the theory in the first place? The authority for believing the Indians were descended from the ten tribes was the passage in Esdras. If Spalding wrote in this genre, he would not have chosen a southern migration a hundred years later. Joseph Smith could do that, but Spalding wouldn’t have, that is, if he wrote in the ten tribe genre.

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB,

Again, I stand by the belief that Joseph Smith was not academically qualified to write such a story. And I have plenty of information to substantiate that. It is not a mere assertion.

I don’t see the Book of Mormon as an academic production--imaginative, creative, poetic, certainly, but not academic. It makes too many errors in geography and history—errors I don’t believe Spalding would make. Things like the too rapid population growth, hemispheric geography, distance problems, unrealistic scenarios, etc. I would add that the bad grammar and slang, which is more apparent in the dictated MS, are things typical for Joseph Smith but not for someone academic like Spalding. The Book of Mormon even criticizes the learned and professional classes, and its author complains that he is mighty in word but not in writing.

[_MCB]

Marg, you are depending too much on the witnesses to Spalding's manuscript. There are too many reasons to be skeptical about them. In the context of the whole picture, they are validated, but by themselves, they are actually quite flimsy. That is one complaint that I have about both sides (or all sides) of the argument; people tend to hone in on just one aspect, rather than taking the gestalt.

Dan, Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon. And we don't know exactly what was in the book he wrote. But the witnesses were describing something that was NOT Oberlin Manuscript story.

I don’t see the Book of Mormon as an academic production--imaginative, creative, poetic, certainly, but not academic.

However, there were many sources which point to an academic author from whom Joseph Smith & Co. borrowed. And Spalding is the most logical choice.

[_Finrock]

Good afternoon MCB!

Reply to Finrock:

Well, I guess you are going to have to read the book.

A somewhat confusing response to my post. Are you suggesting then that if you make claims on a forum that I bear the burden of proof by needing to read a book that from what I understand you are in the process of writing? Doesn't that seem somewhat backwards to scholarly standards? As I understood things, and I could be mistaken here, but when one makes a claim, in particular when one is accusing the majority of a class of some unethical behavior, it is the one who is making the claim that bears the burden of proof. This is the pattern of sound reasoning and ethical conduct, as I understand it.

So, am I to understand then that you are satisfied with making broad unfounded statements about a majority of people?

"Most Mormons," having no access to parallels in literature, because of their beliefs, read the Book of Mormon, identifying with the Nephites, and do not see the Nephite's fate as their fate, if they choose to be elitist and racist. They do not appreciate the deeper meaning. Since they "follow the leaders," who are are deeply steeped in LDS culture, their leaders reinforce this view. Therefore, I use the term "most Mormons." I agree, most Mormons are not racist and elitist. However, the core of believers-- many and the most powerful, are. The others just "follow the leaders."

You've changed the content of your statements a bit, but the delivery is still the same. Again, how are you privy to the minds and lives of most Mormons that allows you to confidently claim what or what not they have access to, that they identify with the Nephites (in such a generalized way). How do you know that most Mormons do not appreciate "the deeper meaning" (which deeper meaning seems to be only the meaning that MCB has asserted). So, instead of "most" Mormons not being racist and elitist, now just the the core believers are and most of the powerful are. Well, thank you for scaling back your assertion somewhat, but you haven't eliminated the problematic nature of your claim. You are probably aware that making hasty generalizations is evidence of one who is elitist and prejudiced. Isn't it ironic that your posts seem to be pinning the fault you assert on a class of people to your own person?

Another question: What is a "core believer"? Your term is very ambiguous.

As for running a study on those tendencies among LDS, I included data already available, and a very heart-felt case-study.

Oh, so there is data that proves many core believers (whatever a core believe is) and the most powerful members are racist and elitist? Where can I find the data and the method and results of your case-study?

Regards,
Finrock